Death is usually the thing doctors try to prevent. That's the whole point of the white coat and the stethoscope, right? But in a few corners of the world, the conversation has shifted toward something much heavier. We aren't just talking about terminal cancer or end-stage organ failure anymore. We are talking about euthanasia for mental illness, a reality where a person’s psychological pain—not a physical tumor—becomes the justification for a medically assisted death.
It’s heavy stuff. Honestly, it’s controversial because it forces us to ask if a brain can be "terminally" broken.
🔗 Read more: RFK Jr Comments on Autism Explained: What You Need to Know
In countries like Belgium, the Netherlands, and more recently Canada (though they keep pushing the pause button on the mental health aspect), the laws have moved beyond the "six months to live" rule. These places look at "unbearable suffering" that cannot be relieved. If you’ve spent twenty years in a deep, dark depression, tried every pill in the book, done the shocks (ECT), and talked until your throat was raw in therapy, does that count as a terminal condition? Some experts say yes. Others think it’s a terrifying slippery slope that devalues the lives of the most vulnerable people in our society.
The Reality of MAiD and the "Irremediable" Label
When we talk about euthanasia for mental illness, we’re often talking about Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD). In the Netherlands, this has been a thing for a while. Specifically, the Dutch Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide Act of 2002 laid the groundwork. It doesn't discriminate between physical and mental suffering. The catch? The suffering must be "unbearable and with no prospect of improvement."
That last part is the kicker. No prospect of improvement.
How does a psychiatrist actually prove that? They can't. Not really. Psychiatry isn't like oncology where you can see a scan and know the stage of a disease. It’s subjective. Dr. Sjoerd Zijlstra, a Dutch psychiatrist, has noted that determining "irremediability" in mental health is basically the hardest thing a doctor can be asked to do. You’re essentially betting that a person will never feel better, even though we see people recover from "untreatable" depression after decades of struggle.
Let’s look at a real case that made waves.
Zoraya ter Beek, a 29-year-old Dutch woman, made headlines recently for her decision to pursue euthanasia due to chronic depression, autism, and borderline personality disorder. She wasn't dying of a physical disease. She was just tired. Her story blew up because she’s young. People look at a 29-year-old and think, "You have so much life left." But for her, the internal landscape was a desert. Her doctors eventually agreed that her situation was "hopeless."
Why Canada Is Pulling the Emergency Brake
Canada is the current lightning rod for this debate. In 2021, the Canadian government passed Bill C-7, which was supposed to open the door for euthanasia for mental illness by March 2023. Then they pushed it to 2024. Now, they’ve pushed it again to 2027.
Why the cold feet?
Because the Canadian healthcare system is under fire. Critics, including many disability advocates and the UN Special Rapporteur, have pointed out some pretty disturbing trends. There are reports of veterans being offered MAiD when they asked for wheelchair ramps or PTSD support. There are stories of people in poverty considering assisted death because they can't find affordable housing.
When you mix euthanasia for mental illness with a lack of social support, you get a toxic cocktail. If a person wants to die because they are depressed, but that depression is fueled by being homeless and alone, is the "cure" really a lethal injection? Or is it a house and a community?
Health Minister Mark Holland admitted that the system just isn't ready. They don't have enough specialized psychiatrists to do the assessments. They don't have a standardized way to tell the difference between a "rational" request for death and a symptom of the illness itself—which is often the desire to die.
The Distinction Between Suicidality and MAiD
This is where it gets really murky. Usually, if you tell a doctor you want to kill yourself, they put you in a gown and a locked room for 72 hours. That’s the standard of care: suicide prevention.
But with euthanasia for mental illness, the doctor becomes the provider of the means.
Proponents argue there is a huge difference. They say "suicidality" is impulsive, lonely, and often violent. MAiD, on the other hand, is supposed to be "rational suicidality." It’s planned. It’s discussed over months with professionals. It’s done in a clinical setting with family present.
But can you ever truly separate the two? Dr. Paul Appelbaum, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, has argued that the desire for death is a core symptom of many psychiatric disorders. If you treat the symptom by ending the patient, are you practicing medicine or are you just giving up?
The data from the Netherlands shows that the numbers are small but growing. In 2022, about 115 people received euthanasia for psychiatric reasons there. That’s a tiny fraction of the thousands who used MAiD for cancer, but it’s a number that keeps ticking upward. It's mostly women. Mostly people with personality disorders or chronic depression.
The Ethical Minefield of "Unbearable Suffering"
What is unbearable?
If you have a migraine for three days, it feels unbearable. If you lose a child, the grief is unbearable. But we expect those things to change or for us to grow around the pain.
In the context of euthanasia for mental illness, "unbearable" is whatever the patient says it is. In Belgium, the law requires that the suffering cannot be alleviated. But "cannot" is a strong word. Maybe it cannot be alleviated with current tech. Maybe a new med comes out next year. Or maybe the patient refuses a specific treatment—like lithium or ECT—because the side effects are too much. Does refusing a treatment make your condition "untreatable"?
In some jurisdictions, the answer is yes. You have the right to refuse treatment. So, if you refuse the only thing that might help you, you are legally "untreatable," and therefore eligible for death.
It’s a paradox that makes many clinicians sweat.
The Impact on the Medical Profession
We also have to think about the doctors. Most people go into psychiatry to help people find a reason to live.
Asking a doctor to flip that switch is a massive psychological burden. In countries where this is legal, many psychiatrists simply refuse to do it. They cite the Hippocratic Oath. Others feel that it is an act of mercy. They see patients who have been in "mental agony" for 40 years and believe that forcing them to continue living is a form of torture.
There is also the "contagion" factor. When death becomes a medicalized option, does it change how we view recovery? If the exit door is always visible, does it make the hard work of therapy feel pointless? These are questions we don't have solid answers for yet.
What You Should Know if You're Following This Debate
This isn't just a legal debate. It's a cultural shift in how we value life and how we define "health."
If you are looking at the landscape of euthanasia for mental illness, keep these points in mind:
- Legal variation is massive. What is legal in Amsterdam will get a doctor life in prison in New York or London.
- The "Slippery Slope" isn't just a theory. In Canada, the rapid expansion from terminal illness to chronic disability to (eventually) mental illness has shocked even some original supporters of the law.
- Access to care matters. Experts like Dr. Sonu Gaind from the University of Toronto argue that we shouldn't even talk about assisted death for mental illness until we have a mental health system that actually works. If you have to wait two years for a therapist but can get MAiD in 90 days, the "choice" isn't really a choice.
- Diagnostic uncertainty. Unlike a tumor, there are no biomarkers for "permanent" depression. Diagnoses change. People get better in their 50s after a miserable 20s.
The conversation isn't going away. As more countries look at their aging populations and rising mental health crises, the "option" of assisted death will keep coming up.
Actionable Steps for Navigating the Conversation
If you’re researching this for a school project, a legal case, or because it hits close to home, here is how to look at the data critically.
Check the source country. Always look at the specific laws of the country being cited. Belgium’s "Law on Euthanasia" (2002) is very different from Oregon’s "Death with Dignity Act," which strictly forbids assisted death for mental illness.
Look for peer-reviewed psychiatric journals. Don't just read the news headlines. Search for papers in The Lancet Psychiatry or JAMA Psychiatry. Look for terms like "capacity assessment" and "remediability." This is where the real experts argue about whether a depressed person can truly give informed consent.
Distinguish between "Assisted Suicide" and "Euthanasia." They aren't the same. Assisted suicide is when the doctor provides the drug and the patient takes it. Euthanasia is when the doctor administers the drug. Different places allow one, both, or neither.
Follow the Canadian "Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying." Their reports are public and contain testimonies from doctors, ethicists, and people with lived experience. It is the most transparent look at a country struggling with these boundaries in real-time.
Prioritize immediate support. If you or someone you know is struggling with thoughts of death, the conversation about international law is secondary to immediate safety. In the US and Canada, you can call or text 988 anytime. In the UK, call 111 or contact Samaritans at 116 123. Legal debates are for the textbooks; your life is for right now.
Understanding the nuance of euthanasia for mental illness requires looking past the "pro-life" vs. "pro-choice" slogans. It requires looking at the failure of social safety nets, the limits of modern medicine, and the profound, sometimes quiet, suffering of the human mind. Whether it is a compassionate release or a systemic failure depends entirely on who you ask and where they stand.